Table 4 - uploaded by John Colombi
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
The DoD has frequently demonstrated its ability to procure phenomenal systems; however, these accomplishments are often tarnished by substantial cost and schedule overruns. While defense acquisition policies are continually being revised to address these perennial problems, many believe that a more fundamental source of these overruns is the lack o...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... aggregate, these cost and probability threshold descriptions comprise what we refer to as each requirement's Marginal Probability Cost (MPC). Table 4 shows the MPCs for all three payload designs relative to requirement #1, air-to-air armament (for sim- plicity, the costs in these tables are shown as mean values rather than as a range of estimated values with an associ- ated confidence interval that the actual CEVLCCC interface accommodates). The bolded row represents the current threshold value. ...
Similar publications
Objective: In this study, hard, resilient and soft flooring materials are compared using a building service life of 50 years, an established life span for healthcare facilities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the life-cycle cost of flooring products and inform decision-makers about the long-term cost of ownership along with other key fact...
Citations
... Although the research and development components of LCC are closely monitored during the acquisition lifecycle and unexpected expenses incurred during this phase of a system's lifecycle draw significant public scrutiny and compensatory legislation (11), the operation and support components of LCC have drawn less attention. However, these costs have recently begun to draw similar scrutiny, although projections of these costs are more difficult (12). Total ownership costs have received less focus than either acquisition or lifecycle costs as these costs can arise from unpredictable sources such as environmental contamination by an unknown carcinogen or other human systems hazards with consequences that are unknown or difficult to project. ...
Helmet mounted displays (HMDs) provide increased capability to advanced aircraft systems but also add mass to the pilot’s head. This mass potentially increases fatigue, degrades pilot scan patterns, and potentially increases chronic, as well as acute injury during accelerative loading. From a Human Systems Integration (HSI) perspective, HMD capabilities should be selected to maximize performance and minimize system total ownership costs (TOC). Unfortunately, a clear method does not exist for performing this HSI tradeoff analysis to include safety (acute neck injury), occupational health (chronic neck injury), human factors engineering (performance and fatigue), and survivability. This study utilized content analysis and data to propose a qualitative model of the impacts HMDs have on HSI. Further, recent research on neck injury risk criteria was applied to quantify the impacts of helmet mass on the ejection safety portion of the model. A methodology for the formulation of a quantitative model of parameters influencing the HSI impacts of HMDs was developed. This study illustrates the difficulty in formulating a rigorous optimization of HSI parameters for a HMD. If quantitative HSI assessments of realistic system performance and TOC are to be conducted, additional research will be required.
... It includes not only just total acquisition costs, but also costs related to operations, maintenance, and disposal. Importantly LCC also accounts for risks, generally either through sensitivity analyses or through formal quantitative analysis" [20]. Finally, Jones et al. in the light of defence acquisition programs, propose life cycle costs to consist of research and development "costs, investment costs, operating and support costs, and disposal costs over the entire life cycle". ...
Life-cycle costing (LCC), originally developed by the US DoD, promises integrated insight in investment, maintenance, usage and disposal costs of weapon systems. In an era of tightening budgets, these opportunities have led to programs to tailor and implement LCC. At present, conceptual development of LCC concentrates on the asset itself and on defining cost categories tied to an asset. Therefore, current work tends to be somewhat reductionist, looking foremost at seemingly well-defined cost categories, whereas, little attention seems to be paid to the value, organizational context and implementation aspects of LCC. This study aims to contribute to the latter by examining how LCC can support organizations in considering the ways in which they prefer to implement and use LCC. To this extent, focusing on MoD-applicable development of theory and drawing on current research and military cases, the article explores how LCC fits in with strategic decision making, asset management, and organizational capabilities.
... Although the research and development components of LCC are closely monitored during the acquisition lifecycle and unexpected expenses incurred during this phase of a system's lifecycle draws significant public scrutiny and compensatory legislation (WSARA, 2009), the operation and support components of LCC have more recently began to draw similar scrutiny, although projection of these costs are more difficult (Ryan, 2012). Total ownership costs have received less focus than either acquisition or lifecycle costs as these costs can arise from unpredictable sources such as environmental contamination by an unknown carcinogen or other human systems hazards with consequences that are unknown or difficult to project. ...
Helmet mounted displays (HMDs) provide increased capability to advanced aircraft systems but also add mass to the pilot's head. This mass potentially increases fatigue, degrades pilot scan patterns, and potentially increases chronic, as well as acute injury during accelerative loading. From a Human Systems Integration (HSI) perspective, HMD capabilities should be selected to maximize performance and minimize system total ownership costs (TOC). Unfortunately, a clear method does not exist for performing this HSI tradeoff analysis to include safety (acute neck injury), occupational health (chronic neck injury), human factors engineering (performance and fatigue), and survivability. This study utilized content analysis and data to develop a qualitative model of the impacts HMDs have on HSI. Further, recent research on neck injury risk criteria was applied to quantify the impacts of helmet mass on the ejection safety portion of the model. A methodology for the formulation of a quantitative model of parameters influencing the HSI impacts of HMDs was developed. This study illustrates the difficulty in formulating a rigorous optimization of HSI parameters for a HMD. If quantitative HSI assessments of realistic system performance and TOC are to be conducted, additional research will be required.
As a capability development methodology, systems engineering (SE) has a remarkable track record of success. This is especially the case in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) where some of the most complicated systems ever devised were made possible using the principled design techniques that comprise SE.
However, SE is now failing us, all of us—both those inside the defense establishment and those that rely on it. That impressive track record obscures what would otherwise be an obvious truth: SE as practiced today across the DoD is increasingly unsuited for a dynamic world characterized by high uncertainty and increasing complexity. As adversary threats emerge at an alarming pace, it’s clear that a fundamentally different approach to defense capability development is needed.
This book describes the foundations of an alternative approach known as “Designing for Principles,” which is much better equipped to rapidly and continuously deliver warfighter needs in the contemporary environment. For anyone interested in the nature and future of DoD capability development efforts, you will find in this book compelling arguments to move on from traditional SE toward Designing for Principles, as well as numerous recommendations to begin implementing the transition.
Building on a previously published research into a system-of-systems (SoS) quality attribute (QAt) balancing approach, this article extends the identification of desired characteristics for a selected as-is SoS architecture into defined design configurations as candidate architectures. We propose a process framework for the identification of the desired characteristics as QAts of interest to be balanced against selected performance measures. We show the extension of QAts to operational activities to be accounted for within the architecture and design techniques for employment against an as-is SoS architecture. We show how the operational activities and design techniques can be mapped to metrics used to compare alternative design configurations. These design configurations are then quantified in terms of the metrics for later comparison. We illustrate the framework using a generic DoD satellite communications (SATCOM) case study. Although our focus here is on a SATCOM example with a selected sub-et of attributes, the framework can be extended to address multiple similar issues across a multidomain space.
Abstract: Helmet mounted displays (HMDs) are becoming common human-machine interface equipment in manned military flight, but introducing this equipment into the overall aircraft escape system poses new and significant system design, development, and test concerns. Although HMDs add capabilities, which improve operator performance, the increased capability is often accompanied by increased head supported mass. The increased mass can amplify the risk of pilot neck injury during ejection when compared to lighter legacy helmets. Currently no adequate US Air Force neck injury criteria exist to effectively guide the requirements, design, and test of escape systems for pilots with HMDs. This research effort presents a novel method to develop neck injury criteria to aid the design and test of future HMD-centric escape systems. The state of the art pilot-scale injury criteria risk functions developed in this research are constructed with combined human subject and post mortem human subject experimental data using a parametric survival analysis. The resulting neck injury criteria permit injury risk and classification levels specified by the Air Force escape system oversight office to be translated into system level test criteria. The application of the system level criteria during developmental and qualification testing of escape systems will ensure pilot safety and limit risk of neck injury. A Human Systems Integration analysis of the HMD trade space is also performed to demonstrate the importance of neck injury criteria and other tools to quantify the human-centric costs and benefits during HMD development.
